From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.manjaro.org (mail.manjaro.org [116.203.91.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F157A6A339 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 07:26:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713338763; cv=none; b=aoVmTaUta2mdHTw62jp5VbGSnTHem77UkPv61a71azqmk4TxiqmK99CSKp+Sg5UMXEE73oulcejSnIK1TjWpQ5BCEkbhLG/nSTgfi3VnogQvNQxxlvBGvjT7EyYomkdC+inc5S0NYBER5c5vKigXJyjwHPebkXohD9GVWl3fuEU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713338763; c=relaxed/simple; bh=GNvHJ17vsBs7mRp+zwVX3bh89Bx0lvy77DB0OuDjWvA=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=ASlhsHbTyhj5xe33QAYrzUFnjm/zqlDDb6T22JLqopFwpXju6pZSCIgwzOfbcioMSheR7xdAFmJR0/QbCyOk7xkpJ2Nro1mToaUvwAaq6lwcJI7mRUpdo5lzAsbmtqhnahCHrD5u9rk/HWyPjX7jznR9y096uzsyhQnvL4A67ws= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b=hXTPtij+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b="hXTPtij+" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=manjaro.org; s=2021; t=1713338759; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=3kgL3zI+ezuGXjnkllk8uJ4rMU8qrA4JEdKQKt645J0=; b=hXTPtij+wdB2wcXPfOedlW1r9+DCVmb2V1z+sG1PmtamJ+yoDeLZN1pVgUCgmu6BY7g0ab KzDeYabUSTWWjZaSIrI66xjXcuhwFcfwIcDWH7lUxKqAFomIXgr8fDgSQHmO9v5H1JpGGv DVCjaFPOO6HjpwvUa72B7dLsnX91Fwo4Sc7wyz/oDWiq1e+gu20rpeD1UQuGexsFaDUbLI t7eGLvBn1JS1Jn1qlBRJL6fx+UWReziccMWAXSJqKg52qHWK7qRXULC5zZ4J6+QKrL6bMC A8QQm2qi3bPn+KqgxFCGdUxop+0b7g5eLyJuaV62fnCUtEG1uSRcCfUYuPV0RA== Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:25:59 +0200 From: Dragan Simic To: Eric Sunshine Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] format-patch: new --resend option for adding "RESEND" to patch subjects In-Reply-To: References: <1d9c6ce3df714211889453c245485d46b43edff6.1713324598.git.dsimic@manjaro.org> Message-ID: X-Sender: dsimic@manjaro.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Authentication-Results: ORIGINATING; auth=pass smtp.auth=dsimic@manjaro.org smtp.mailfrom=dsimic@manjaro.org On 2024-04-17 09:17, Eric Sunshine wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 3:05 AM Dragan Simic > wrote: >> On 2024-04-17 08:35, Eric Sunshine wrote: >> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 11:33 PM Dragan Simic >> > wrote: >> >> - die(_("options '%s' and '%s' cannot be used >> >> together"), "--subject-prefix/--rfc", "-k"); >> >> + die(_("options '%s' and '%s' cannot be used >> >> together"), "--subject-prefix/--rfc/--resend", "-k"); >> > >> > You probably want to be using die_for_incompatible_opt4() from >> > parse-options.h here. >> >> Thanks for the suggestion. Frankly, I haven't researched the >> available options, assuming that the current code uses the right >> option. Of course, I'll have a detailed look into it. >> >> > (And you may want a preparatory patch which fixes the preimage to use >> > die_for_incompatible_opt3() for --subject-prefix, --rfc, and -k >> > exclusivity, though that may be overkill.) >> >> I'm not really sure what to do. Maybe the other reviewers would >> prefer an orthogonal approach instead? Maybe that would be better >> for bisecting later, if need arises for that? > > The comment about using die_for_incompatible_opt4() in this patch is > the meaningful one. > > You are very welcome to ignore the parenthesized comment about a > preparatory patch. There is probably very little value in such a patch > to fix the preimage to use die_for_incompatible_opt3(), only to then > apply this patch which updates it to use die_for_incompatible_opt4(). > That would just be busy-work for you and for reviewers. I mentioned it > only because I noticed that the preimage was doing it wrong (not using > die_for_incompatible_opt3()), which presumably misled you into > continuing that mistake. Ah, makes sense, thanks for the clarification! :)